[reeftool]

I already have my money's worth from this purchase, and I expect to continue using it.

Much of this discussion will likely depend on one's financial position. For the guy that has to save for months to buy a lens, having his system abandoned can be catastrophic. For someone else, maybe just an annoyance.

[reh321]

Much of this discussion will likely depend on one's financial position. For the guy that has to save for months to buy a lens, having his system abandoned can be catastrophic. For someone else, maybe just an annoyance.

"Catastrophic" is a rather dramatic term.
I bought my Q-7 at a time when our cash flow was weak because of what could truly be called a financial catastrophe (*)
{that is why I bought used-like-new, both the Q-7 and the K-30 six months later}
As I indicated earlier, if s/he needs to save, then there isn't necessarily any reason to buy anything.
There is no reason to expect a "Q" system to fail any time soon, and recent upgrades to most systems have been largely subtle.

(*) We had moved from Massachusetts to Indiana; our house in Massachusetts was "under water" figuratively when we moved, because we our mortgage was something like $20K more than the assessed market value when we moved {remember the "housing bubble" in the US}. That next winter, the house had not yet sold, and the realtor forgot to check the thermostat - lots of people had been through the house, according to him, so there had been lots of opportunity for someone to "monkey with" the thermostat. Then he got a call that someone had gone past the house and had seen water pouring out the windows. It turned out that a water pipe had frozen-then-broken in the upstairs bathroom, and slightly warmer weather had started water flowing again, and now parts of the house were literally under water. We had a friend in town who was a contractor; he hired people to do the job of completely stripping the first floor {he took no pay for his work; most of the physical labor was done by high school students, including his daughter; she also refused payment} so professionals could dry it out and avoid mold. When no one lives in a house, you have to get "vacant property" insurance. The insurance which the realtor had recommended to us protected Bank of America better than it protected us - damage resulting from "water from a pipe" was not covered. Mercifully, I don't remember the exact figures now, but we spent something like $30K to have the house dried out and we eventually sold the house for something like $50K less than the original assessed market value.

[reeftool]

"Catastrophic" is a rather dramatic term.

Maybe, but when you have a camera that is still under warranty and the company discontinues it and won't fix it, you tend to get dramatic. I actually took a baseball bat and and a hammer to my Nikon Pronea. It felt good at the time. My daughter shoots Nikon but I won't ever again. At the time, I was broke but I did still have my Spotmatic and my old Taks. I still use the Taks. I think what pissed me off the most was that even though the IX lenses were F mount, they weren't usable on other bodies, a fact that the camera store never passed on to me.

[Ratcheteer]

BTW - I do have a collection of worthless-to-me lenses, old EF-S lenses which cost me more than I spent on the Q7. Yeah, I could probably sell them, but the markdown on lenses like that make me doubt it would be worth my bother.

nothing worse that having lens you don't use, cut your losses and sell them already, especially if you hate canon, selling new lenses is their main source of income, for whatever little money you get for yours that's money not going to canon

Much of this discussion will likely depend on one's financial position. For the guy that has to save for months to buy a lens, having his system abandoned can be catastrophic. For someone else, maybe just an annoyance.

catastrophic only if the system is the only tool in your business which i highly doubt this even applies to the nikon 1, now days the market is flooded with so many alternatives its become a non issue, and if anything the discontinuation of a system turns it into a collectors item making the lens into a good investment.

I actually took a baseball bat and and a hammer to my Nikon Pronea. It felt good at the time. My daughter shoots Nikon but I won't ever again.

don't blame nikon, the aps system was a film manufactures ploy to make more money, introduce a new format to force labs to buy new equipment.

[reeftool]

don't blame nikon, the aps system was a film manufactures ploy to make more money, introduce a new format to force labs to buy new equipment.

Oh, but I do. Why build a camera system that used the same mount but the lenses were made in such a way that they interfered with mirror operation if mounted on a 35mm? I know and understand full well the image circle issue and that the IX lenses would vignette anyhow but when Nikon introduced their DX digital cameras, they could have made it in a way that the IX lenses could have worked. At the very least, they could have built a TC type adapter so the people who got suckered in didn't get a double screwing and get some use out of the glass they invested in.

And I'll add that if they knew that there was a design issue with APS film cartridges (which is now why they claim they discontinued the cameras), why market the cameras to begin with? The APS system had some advantages going for it like being able to change film mid roll and be able to reload and start where you left off. It also had a strip of tape that recorded camera and lens information, an early exif, and was printed on the back of the prints.The cameras sold like hotcakes to begin with and was quite successful. It was more than a ploy but it went to market untested, the cameras broke, the manufacturers refused to fix anything and blamed the film cartridges and ultimately led to a lot of pissed off people. The losses due to APS are blamed for the demise of Minolta.

My IX lenses are not collectable and their only worth is that of a paperweight. Unfortunately for those who bought in, the Nikon 1 is too small and light to even function as a paperweight.

[reh321]

Don't blame nikon, the aps system was a film manufactures ploy to make more money, introduce a new format to force labs to buy new equipment.

No, don't blame Kodak. APS was a good idea, but the timing was terrible. They came out with a form of EXIF before digital, and a format that provided a reasonable compromises between 35mm and the cartridge cameras that true amateurs loved. Yes, there were a few details for them to work out, but the time wasn't there.

[Ratcheteer]

No, don't blame Kodak

i didnt meantion kodak :P

They came out with a form of EXIF before digital

exif feature only worked intermittently and was completely out of the question if you didn't have the right equipment

aps didn't make photography any more affordable since it required you to invest in new equipment